Gay Marriage Debate - Sacramento, CA

There remains no rational secular basis for denying same-sex couples the right obtain a civil marriage. All arguments in opposition are illogical, irrational, or based on ignorance, animus, or belief in myth or superstition.

How do you feel about same sex marriages between species? Let's say you as a male (or eunuch) wanted to marry your own dog (also male) in a civil ceremony, should it be legal?

leroi wrote:

How do you feel about same sex marriages between species? Let's say you as a male (or eunuch) wanted to marry your own dog (also male) in a civil ceremony, should it be legal?

When you can get a non-human to be able to sign a legal contract you lemme know. Until then it is a really lame argument.

It's about equality.

Oops. Sorry about the repeats.

leroi wrote:

How do you feel about same sex marriages between species? Let's say you as a male (or eunuch) wanted to marry your own dog (also male) in a civil ceremony, should it be legal?

Clearly, when one is reduced to this base level of argument, one has no argument.

Think about it, what happens to the next generation. No children? This gay stuff is so crazy thinking because of the lack of caring for our next generation. Children need both a male and female to develope to be balanced human beings that is why God made us both male and female.

Patricia Perry wrote:

Think about it, what happens to the next generation. No children? This gay stuff is so crazy thinking because of the lack of caring for our next generation. Children need both a male and female to develope to be balanced human beings that is why God made us both male and female.

Ooookay. Now what percentage of the population is LGBT hmmm? That's right... most estimates are somewhere between 5 and 10%. That still leaves plenty of people pumping babies into our already over-crowded world.
And "children need both a male and female..." Really? Do you KNOW how many single mothers are out there? And, not only that, but research has shown time and time again that children do NOT actually need a member of each gender to raise them in order to be well-balanced, productive members of society.
We all know that the anti-gay marriage crowd's concerns are NOT actually the children and surely not OUR children. Because many of us ALREADY have children and want to give them stable, married families... but that's not your concern is it? It's actually simple fear of change and the ignorance and lies fed you regarding us.

Patricia Perry wrote:

Think about it, what happens to the next generation. No children?

Regarding the suggestion to "Think about it," what evidence supports the notion that allowing same-sex couples the right to civil marriage will cause fewer children to be born? Do you possess any critical thinking skills at all, or do you simply parrot nonsensical garbage of the type you've offered here?

Patricia Perry wrote:

This gay stuff is so crazy thinking because of the lack of caring for our next generation. Children need both a male and female to develope to be balanced human beings that is why God made us both male and female.

Feel free to provide evidence that children raised by same-sex couples are in any way harmed or suffer negative outcomes compared to their peers raised by opposite-sex couples.

(Here's a hint: the only "studies" that support your argument have been advanced by George Rekers, the guy who paid a male prostitute from "Rentboy.com " to accompany him on a "working" vacation, and whose studies and testimony have been thrown out of two separate court cases.)

There remains no rational secular basis for denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage. All arguments in opposition are irrational, illogical, or based on ignorance, animus, fear or religious superstition or myth.

"gay marriage" is an oxymoron since it does not fit the definition of marriage. Homosexuality is a sin against God and man. An abomination.

Rev Dan wrote:

"gay marriage" is an oxymoron since it does not fit the definition of marriage. Homosexuality is a sin against God and man. An abomination.

Your definitional argument is a circular one. The very issue is whether or not to include same-sex couples into the legal definition of civil marriage. To simply say that "gay marriage" (so called) can't be allowed because it doesn't fall within the definition of marriage simply begs the question.(It is also patently false in five states and DC, as well as several nations in the world.)

There is no such legal construction as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage." There is just "civil marriage." In the five states and DC that recognize the right of same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage, they are not given a separate "gay marriage" certificate. They get the same civil marriage document that opposite-gender couples get.

You apparently do not understand the distinction between the RIGHT to obtain a civil marriage and the pronouncement of the marriage RITE. What you're squawking about is the religious marriage rite, which has absolutely no legal standing and is entirely the province of private institutions and groups. Under the First Amendment, religious organizations are and always will be completely free to deny religious marriage rites to ANY couple on any basis they deem proper for their particular mythology.

Since the mythological concepts of "god" and "sin" have no empirical and legal basis, they cannot be the basis for a reasoned argument about secular law, much less the status of civil marriage. No intelligent advocate would attempt to make such superstitious claims.

There remains no rational secular basis for denying same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage. All arguments in opposition are irrational, illogical or based on ignorance, animus, fear or religious superstition and myth.

Rev Dan wrote:

"gay marriage" is an oxymoron since it does not fit the definition of marriage. Homosexuality is a sin against God and man. An abomination.

The Bible also talks about remarrying after divorce and calls it an "abomination" as well... and I have yet to see anyone protesting that prevalent social convention. Nor have I seen any of the other "abominations" spoken of in the Bible being socially enforced. Luckily we live in a secular country where religious beliefs are not what our laws are based upon.

ok so i know what your gonna say. gay people should be together. it doesnt matter who you are because all that matters is if you love each other. well thats bull. i mean you cant get married because the whole reason for getting married is for a man and a woman to get married. and the other reason to get married is for lovers to reproduce, you cant reproduce with the same gender. also its just not right, god put people on this earth to reproduce with a male and female and spread his teachings. gay marriage isnt helping that. also your putting the world to an end. god said something like this would happen and he was right. he also that when this kind of thing does happen thats when the earth is comming to an end. so either way you put it, gay marriage is wrong

james wrote:

ok so i know what your gonna say. gay people should be together. it doesnt matter who you are because all that matters is if you love each other. well thats bull. i mean you cant get married because the whole reason for getting married is for a man and a woman to get married. and the other reason to get married is for lovers to reproduce, you cant reproduce with the same gender. also its just not right, god put people on this earth to reproduce with a male and female and spread his teachings. gay marriage isnt helping that. also your putting the world to an end. god said something like this would happen and he was right. he also that when this kind of thing does happen thats when the earth is comming to an end. so either way you put it, gay marriage is wrong

So... reproduction is the "whole reason for getting married." I'm sorry -- did they start testing for reproductive ability lately in order to get married? Hmmm... that kinda sucks for anyone who is sterile, has had a hysterectomy or vasectomy or is simply too old to reproduce. Ah well, I guess fair is fair.

james wrote:

ok so i know what your gonna say.

Nothing like setting up a strawman argument by actually saying you're going to do it.

james wrote:

gay people should be together. it doesnt matter who you are because all that matters is if you love each other. well thats bull.

Not all gay people "should be together." Like many heterosexual people, many gay people prefer to live alone. Many same-sex couples live together without getting married, just like many opposite-sex couples. However, there is no rational secular basis to deny two unrelated adults the right to obtain a civil marriage solely on the basis of the gender of one of the partners.

james wrote:

i mean you cant get married because the whole reason for getting married is for a man and a woman to get married.

This statement is the very definition of a circular argument, a logical fallacy also known as "begging the question" (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point"). The proposition you are trying to prove is assumed in your premise. You fail basic logic.

james wrote:

and the other reason to get married is for lovers to reproduce, you cant reproduce with the same gender.

"Lovers" can reproduce without getting married, and many married people cannot or do not reproduce.

Opponents of civil marriage for same-sex couples apparently need to define marriage solely by an attribute that is neither necessary nor sufficient for its legal establishment. The reasons for getting married are more various than that, and society benefits from same-sex couples getting married in all the same ways it benefits from opposite-sex couples getting married. Same-sex couples are raising millions of children right now.

What rational basis exists to deny the children of same-sex couples the benefits and protections that marriage affords their peers being raised by opposite-sex couples?

james wrote:

also its just not right, god put people on this earth to reproduce with a male and female and spread his teachings. gay marriage isnt helping that.

The issue isn't about what your particular mythology tells you or the superstitions that you happen to believe. The issue is CIVIL marriage, not religious marriage.

james wrote:

also your putting the world to an end. god said something like this would happen and he was right. he also that when this kind of thing does happen thats when the earth is comming to an end. so either way you put it, gay marriage is wrong

In the absense of evidence, you just make things up. What evidence exists to support the claim that allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage will cause "the world to end"?

Ultimately, your "argument" is a jumble of nonsense, non sequitur, and logial fallacy, which places you right in the mainstream of anti-gay thought. Congratulations.

wow are you serious all james is trying to say is that gay marriage is wrong. and half the words you said dont make any sense!

i dont know james is right. seeing two men kissing would be kind of awkward!

o litsen james knows wat hes saying he just forgot to say that marrage is being with someone you love

go james! these people have your back:)

get a life guys james is just smarter then you guys!